Roe v Wade

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      New York City to provide free abortion pills at four clinics

      by

      New York City to provide free abortion pills at four clinicsBronx clinic will be first of four free clinics to offer free abortion pills, followed by facilities in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens New York’s mayor, Eric Adams, has announced free abortion pills will be provided at four public clinics across the city, making its health department the first in the nation to offer free medication abortion.Abortion pills are used in more than 50% of all US abortions, but most are given in a hospital where patients and their insurance are billed. Unlike hospitals, these clinics primarily target those on lower incomes and the uninsured. They are free to access.The news comes after the conservative-majority US supreme court voted last year to overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark case that guaranteed the constitutional right to an abortion. Since the ruling, getting an abortion in America has become more difficult as many Republican-dominated states have limited or banned abortion. Abortion pills can be taken up to 11 weeks of pregnancy and the earlier they are taken, the more effective they are.In a speech on women’s health on Wednesday, Adams said: “For too long, health and healthcare has been centered around men. If men had periods, pap smears and menopause, they would get a paid vacation, and if men could get pregnant, we wouldn’t see Congress trying to pass laws restricting abortion.”On Wednesday, a Bronx clinic will be the first of the four free clinics to offer free abortion pills. The pills will be made available at three more clinics in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens and the rollout will take up to a year due to federally mandated training for the healthcare workers, according to health commissioner, Dr Ashwin Vasan.In New York, abortion is legal but it is now in effect banned in at least 13 states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.TopicsNew YorkEric AdamsUS politicsAbortionRoe v WadenewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Onslaught of new abortion restrictions looms in reddest of states

      by

      Onslaught of new abortion restrictions looms in reddest of statesNew state legislative sessions likely to bring fresh efforts to restrict, penalize or altogether ban the procedure In Nebraska, a total abortion ban could be on the horizon. In Florida, the gestational limit for abortions could drop from 15 weeks to 12. Elsewhere, lawmakers have abortion pills in their sights.When Roe v Wade fell, most states were no longer in legislative session, meaning the term during which they usually write and pass bills had ended. In January, state legislatures will reconvene in an entirely new reality, one where conservative lawmakers are no longer constrained by the constitutional right to abortion once assured by Roe.Googling abortion? Your details aren’t as private as you thinkRead moreThe midterm elections brought victories for abortion rights in a number of states. But in others, politics are on the side of anti-abortion advocates. In those reddest of states, the new state legislative sessions are likely to bring a fresh onslaught of efforts to restrict, penalize or altogether ban abortion.Katie Glenn, the state policy director at Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America, confirms the group’s top priority in 2023 will be reducing the gestational age for legal abortion, alongside bringing new outright bans. Abortion is currently banned in 13 states.Exactly how restrictive those bans will be remains to be seen, with conservatives across the country embroiled in conflicts over which exceptions – if any – should be allowed for abortion. “Exceptions in the case of rape and incest, we realise, are sometimes a necessary political reality. And we would not block a bill or oppose a bill that would prevent 95% of abortions,” explains Glenn.In some states, anti-abortion advocates previously stymied by Democrats now have room to maneuver since the midterms, which brought some conservative wins. In 2022, progressive members of Nebraska’s legislature filibustered a ban proposed by Republicans, effectively killing it. But lawmakers say that the party no longer has the votes to block an abortion ban. Meanwhile, in states where abortion bans have been mired in lengthy court proceedings, Republican majorities could pass more stringent laws when the session starts.In Iowa, for example, a six-week ban has been held up in court since 2019. With the legislature reconvening on 9 January, it could choose to pass a new ban rather than waiting for the courts. That would be helped by the fact that, just before Roe fell, Iowa’s state supreme court ruled there is no constitutionalright to abortion in the state. With the midterms solidifying conservative majorities in both chambers, that clears the path toward a tougher ban (though Republicans in the state have said they will discuss next steps only after the court resolves the lawsuit over the six-week ban). Similarly, a six-week ban in Georgia that was recently reinstated by the state supreme court could pave the way for new restrictions when the legislature convenes, considering that Georgia’s governor, state house and state senate are all under Republican control. And in Florida, where the GOP clinched supermajorities in both chambers, legislators have indicated an interest in further limiting abortion, lowering the gestational limit from 15 to 12 weeks.Any legislation in Florida ultimately depends on its Republican governor, Ron DeSantis. DeSantis has grown quiet on the issue as bans have increasingly proven unpopular, and since he is weighing up a 2024 presidential bid, he may hold off.Nor does Republican control over state governments elsewhere necessarily guarantee new restrictions. In some states, consensus has been hard to come by in a GOP increasingly mired by internal divisions.In South Carolina, for example, several attempts to pass an abortion ban in special session in 2022 failed despite a strong Republican majority.Lawmakers were at odds over how far a ban should go, with some supporting an exception for young rape victims, or in cases where there would be no chance of the fetus surviving outside the womb. Ultimately, those differences proved insurmountable: neither side budged, and none of the proposed bans moved forward. A separate six-week ban is making its way through state courts, and abortion in the state remains legal up until 22 weeks.Targeting medication abortionSince Roe fell, requests for medication that can induce a miscarriage have shot up, and medication abortion now accounts for more than half of all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute.Conservatives are increasingly concerned with how to enforce abortion bans in a climate where people can access pills online and manage their own abortions. Medication abortion is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and considered very safe in the first trimester. In Oklahoma, lawmakers have asked the state attorney general to clarify whether self-managed abortion through pills violates the law. Introducing in-person screening requirements is another way to make abortion medication harder to access, especially in states without bans. For example, a Kansas law tried to ban providers from prescribing for medication abortion throughtelehealth. That law was shot down by a judge last month.Restricting telemedicine is one route anti-abortion advocates will take to target medication abortion this year, says Glenn, of SBA Pro-Life America.Students for Life America, another anti-abortion group, intends to go after medication abortion through environmental laws, through bills that would require fetal tissue to be treated as medical waste, curtailing the ability for people to manage their abortions at home. A petition to that effect has already been filed at the federal level with the Food and Drug Administration. Criminalizing abortionStates that ban abortion typically impose criminal penalties on providers who violate bans, but exempt – at least formally – the person actually seeking the abortion. Far-right groups have advocated for an end to that exemption, but their efforts have so far proved politically untenable: in Louisiana, a bill looking to bring murder charges against people who end their own pregnancies failed to pass over the summer, with most Republicans finding it too extreme.Abortion rights advocates are bracing themselves for further such efforts, including bills to criminalize out-of-state travel for abortion – an effort attempted in 2022 by Missouri, without success. “Over a dozen states that put abortion bans in effect in 2022 are states with trifectas that are hostile to abortion rights. In those states that have been the most rabidly anti-abortion, we expect to see a next generation of measures that either remove the exemptions in the current law, or increase the penalties or the enforcement mechanisms” to ban abortions, says Jessica Arons, senior policy counsel for the ACLU.They are also watching efforts to widen the net to penalize those providing assistance to people seeking abortions, including employers. Other legislation already filed in Texas ahead of the new legislative sessionincludes a bill that would count a fetus as a person in the HOV lane; another that would limit tax subsidies for businesses providing support for employees seeking abortions; and legislation that would make it harder for prosecutors to refuse to enforce abortion bans. Bolstered protections in blue statesAmid the barrage of restrictions, other states have made moves to bolster protections for abortion rights. In the midterms, Michigan, Vermont and California protected abortion in their state constitutions. And throughout the country, there are moves to pass and strengthen so-called “shield laws” to protect providers caring for patients from states with bans. “People are looking at those shield laws to see if there are any protections for abortion funds, for example,” explains the Guttmacher Institutes’ policy expert Elizabeth Nash. “If you’re an abortion fund in California, and you give money to somebody from Texas to come to California for an abortion, what kind of protections do we need [to make sure they’re not legally liable]?”Since Roe fell, states like California, Maryland and Delaware have expanded access, including to those from out of state, by passing laws enabling nurses to perform abortions. Meanwhile, in New York, the governor, Kathy Hochul, has allocated millions of dollars to abortion providers and the state is also pursuing efforts to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution. These types of efforts are what states hoping to bolster protections will be looking to. “People are seeing where there are gaps are in these laws, and trying to fill them basically,” Nash says.TopicsAbortionRoe v WadeReproductive rightsUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Rights group calls for Samuel Alito to be investigated after claims of leaked 2014 ruling

      by

      Rights group calls for Samuel Alito to be investigated after claims of leaked 2014 rulingAnti-abortion activist said supreme court justice revealed the landmark ruling on contraception and religious rights weeks earlier A civil rights group issued a call Saturday for US supreme court justice Samuel Alito to be investigated over allegations that the judge leaked a 2014 landmark ruling involving contraception and religious rights at a private dinner with wealthy political donors.The claim was contained in a New York Times article in which minister Rob Schenck, an anti-abortion activist, said he was told of the decision weeks before it was announced and had used the information to prepare a public relations push.Samuel Alito assured Ted Kennedy in 2005 of respect for Roe, diary revealsRead moreSchenck also claimed he tipped off Hobby Lobby, the craft store chain owned by Christian evangelicals that brought and won the case allowing privately-held, for-profit businesses to be exempt from regulations to which its owners religiously object, in this case requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees.“The Senate judiciary committee should immediately move to investigate the apparent leak by Justice Alito,” said Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice.“This bombshell report is the latest proof that the Republican justices on the court are little more than politicians in robes. It’s no wonder trust in the court has hit a record low. Structural reform of the court, including strict new ethics rules, is needed now more than ever.”Fallon added that Schenck “should be called to testify about both the leak and the years-long lobbying effort he once led to cultivate Alito and other Republican justices”.Claims of the judicial leak, potentially for political purposes, comes six months after a draft opinion of the Dobbs decision overturning the nationwide abortion rights established by the 1972 case Roe v Wade was leaked ahead of its June publication.In a letter to supreme court chief justice John G Roberts Jr dated 7 June, Schenck wrote that he was reaching out to the judge “to inform you of a series of events that may impinge on the investigation you and your delegates are undertaking in connection with the leak of a draft opinion”.He described a dinner at which an unnamed political donor invited to dine at the home of Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann, had offered to try to glean information about the pending decision in the Hobby Lobby case.The next day, the Times reported, the dining guest called Schenck and told him Alito had written the majority opinion in the case and that Hobby Lobby would win. That exact decision was publicly announced less than a month later.Schenck concluded the letter to Roberts by saying he “thought this previous incident might bear some consideration by you and others involved in the process”.How that directly reflects on the current investigation into the leak of the Dobbs decision is not clear, but it arrives at a time of concern for the court’s legitimacy as it works under the sway of a conservative supermajority. Polls show that a majority of Americans are losing confidence in the supreme court.After the leak in May of the Dobbs decision draft, Alito called the unauthorized disclosure “a grave betrayal” and ordered an investigation by the supreme court’s marshal.The Times noted that Schenck’s account has “gaps”. But the newspaper’s examination of the claim uncovered emails and conversations that “strongly suggested” that Schenck knew of the decision before it was made public.TopicsUS supreme courtAbortionRoe v WadeContraception and family planningReligionUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US states vote to protect reproductive rights in rebuke to anti-abortion push

      by

      US states vote to protect reproductive rights in rebuke to anti-abortion pushVermont, Michigan and California deliver blows to Republican agenda bent on dismantling the right to choose

      US midterm election results 2022: live
      US midterm elections 2022 – latest live news updates
      Voters in multiple states passed measures to enshrine the right to abortion during Tuesday’s midterm elections, delivering a rebuke to the crackdown on reproductive freedoms taking place across the US.In Michigan, abortion rights campaigners declared victory on a ballot initiative looking to secure a constitutional right to abortion, meaning the state will now escape the imposition of a 1931 abortion ban that was on the books.JD Vance wins Ohio Senate race by wider margin than predictedRead moreThe state is the first in the US to fight off a pre-existing abortion ban with a ballot proposal, called Proposal 3, in a move that campaigners across the country see as a possible road map for other states.“Proposal 3’s passage marks an historic victory for abortion access in our state and in our country – and Michigan has paved the way for future efforts to restore the rights and protections of Roe v Wade nationwide,” Darci McConnell, the communication director for Reproductive Freedom For All, wrote in a statement, announcing the news after it was called by ABC and NBC.The news broke as other US states too saw victories for abortion rights initiatives.Vermont became the first state in America to protect abortion rights in its state constitution just before Michigan, calling their result on Tuesday after its voters resoundingly backed a ballot initiative by a huge margin. And in California, voters were on track to overwhelmingly pass a measure to enshrine into the state’s constitution the right to an abortion and contraception.“Vermont voters made history tonight,” said the Vermont for Reproductive Liberty Ballot Committee, which campaigned for the amendment, according to local news. All votes had not yet been counted at 11pm ET, but the yes campaign was leading by 77% to 22%.“Vermonters support reproductive freedom in all four corners of the state … and they believe that our reproductive decisions are ours to make without interference from politicians,” the committee said in a statement.In Vermont, the outcome was always expected, in a New England state so pro-choice that even the Republican governor backed Proposal 5. The proposal, brought by pro-choice advocates, means the constitution now determines that an “individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course”.California’s Proposition 1, meanwhile, was positioned as a direct response to the US supreme court’s decision that overturned decades of established access and thrust the country into turmoil. Voter’s decisive support for Prop 1 will further enhance the state’s reputation as a haven for reproductive care just as restrictions – and political divisions – deepen across the country.The state’s governor, Gavin Newsom – who won re-election on Tuesday with a large majority – joined in the celebrations at a Prop 1 rally.Gavin Newsom speaking now at Proposition 1 rally, which is poised to pass by a huge margin to enshrine right to abortion in California constitution: “We affirmed we are a true freedom state.”— Ashley Zavala (@ZavalaA) November 9, 2022
      “Governor Newsom made it clear that he wants California to be visible as a haven for people seeking reproductive healthcare and Proposition 1 is part of that,” said constitutional law professor Cary Franklin, who also serves as Faculty Director of the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at the University of California Los Angeles. “It will get media attention and people will be made more aware that California is a place they can go.”The measure had been expected to easily pass, and analysts said support for reproductive rights could draw even more women and young people to the polls, which could play positively for Democrats in California’s conservative pockets.These wins deliver more blows for Republicans who are increasingly finding that, when put to a vote, Americans frequently do not agree with a sweeping agenda to dismantle abortion rights.So far, the anti-abortion movement has relied on judges, state houses and Republican lawmakers to curtail reproductive rights.But since the supreme court dismantled the constitutional right to abortion on 24 June, pro-choice advocates are increasingly looking to ballot initiatives as a way of shoring up rights. The anti-abortion movement suffered a huge blow over the summer when Kansas – a usually reliably red state – slammed down a proposal brought by the Republicans, looking to confirm there was no right to abortion in the state constitution.In Michigan the mood was already jubilant at the yes campaign’s watch party before they called the result, with voters screaming loudly, banging on tables and whooping in support of local voters, doctors and speakers from the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood.“My name is Nicholas, and I live in Ingham county,” one campaigner took to the stage to say. Speaking about him and his girlfriend, he added: “We knocked on over 1,500 doors and walked over a hundred miles, talking to neighbors who – like the rest of us here – agree this is a fundamental right,” to screams and cheers.Nicole Wells Stallworth, executive director at Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan later added: “We are living in a time like no other. The US supreme court did something they have never done: They reversed Roe. They tried it. And as such, we needed a campaign like none other. This campaign turned out to be just that.”TopicsAbortionUS midterm elections 2022US politicsVermontRoe v WadeCalifornianewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The US made women second-class citizens. Now we must give a stinging rebuke | Moira Donegan

      by

      The US made women second-class citizens. Now we must give a stinging rebukeMoira DoneganThe supreme court edict overturning Roe v Wade said women are ‘not without electoral and political power’. That feels almost like a dare Organized feminism has been on the decline in the US since the 1980s, with the radicalism of the second wave giving way to a more diffuse, less focused feminist movement consisting of NGOs, campus activists, online discourse and HR inclusion initiatives. In a way, this is normal. Students of the movement have long spoken of feast and fallow years for feminism, eruptions of activism that are followed by long and virulent backlashes.But feminism has perhaps never received such a dramatic and immediate setback as it did this June. The supreme court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization undid the major legal achievement of the second wave era, reversing Roe v Wade and ending the constitutional right to an abortion.The result has been chaos, with so-called “trigger bans” blasting into enforcement in some states, long-dormant laws from before the era of women’s suffrage being revived in others and still other states left in limbo, as abortion flickers in and out of legality, depending on the proclivities of whichever judge is determining whichever injunction. Children and teens who are pregnant as a result of incest, rape or exploitation are now forced to travel across state lines for abortions, because they live in states where a fetus or embryo is valued more highly than their own health and potential. Women whose pregnancies are doomed are forced to wait, carrying fetuses they know will not live, or to slowly bleed out their miscarriages until either the fetus dies or they go septic.There’s an incalculable amount of cruelty now being forced on pregnant women, and there’s also an insidious kind of debasement being imposed on all women, pregnant or not. Millions of American women and trans people are now living in states where their lives are not their own, where an unplanned pregnancy can derail their educations, careers or plans, where they must live under the indignity of the knowledge that the state can compel them to give birth. That injury is not the kind of acute horror story that we see coming out of states where bans are now in effect. But it is an injury that has been done to each and every woman in America.This indignity is political. For the past five decades, during the Roe era, American women were endowed with a basic level of respect by the right to abortion. They could not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term; their bodies, at least on paper, were their own. This principle lent women a sense of worth and equality under the law, the sense that the freedoms and responsibilities of self-determination and self-respect – of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – so revered in the American tradition were theirs, too. The idea was that women were made, by Roe, into full citizens – not members of some lesser class needing monitoring or protection, but equal participants in the American project.This idea was so powerful and potent to American women’s identity that it did not matter what the reality of Roe was. It did not matter that the decision itself was built on legal reasoning about a right to privacy, instead of a more secure, more honest reasoning about equality; it did not matter that the supreme court had never recognized American women as having their own individual right to reject pregnancy. Over the 49 years of its existence, Roe became more than just the 1973 court decision and its logic. It became a symbol, a shorthand for the baseline preconditions of women’s full citizenship.Dobbs erased both the law and the symbol. Women no longer have a constitutional right to an abortion, and we no longer have the dignity that that right gave us. We are now, in many states, subject to laws that criminalize and surveil us, that assess our needs for medical care based on whether we are suffering enough to deserve it, that in many cases treat blobs of tissue, laughably far from anything human, as having rights and interests that trump our own. In one of the most intimate and life-defining aspects of our existence, we find ourselves not quite treated as adults, not allowed to make our own choices, not trusted to know our own interests and not valued in our own right. In pregnancy, women are now less citizens than they are subjects.In his majority opinion ending the constitutional right to abortion, Samuel Alito asserts that he’s not hurting women on the basis of their sex at all, that he is merely handing the issue “back to the states”, as if any state law banning or restricting abortion did not inherently make women less equal. But Alito asserted that women who did not like the Dobbs decision could simply vote to reverse its effects in their own states, and hope that a majority of other voters agreed with them that they should be full citizens with self-determination. “Women are not without electoral or political power,” Alito said, perhaps somewhat regretfully. If they didn’t like the status of second-class citizenship to which his ruling had consigned them, why didn’t they simply vote themselves out of it? Maybe we will. During the midterm elections, American women can vote en masse to restore reproductive freedom.Of course, voting will not be sufficient to restore abortion rights and women’s full citizenship in America. For that, we will need a revival of an organized and radical feminist movement, committed to local engagement, long-term relationship – and institution-building and direct action. The seeds of that movement are already beginning to germinate in the local abortion funds, clandestine mutual-aid efforts and grassroots mobilizations that have helped fill the well of need in the wake of Dobbs. And of course, voting is not easy for everyone – it has been made less easy, and less meaningful, by the actions of the same supreme court.But the midterm elections represent an immediate opportunity for American women to exercise that political power of which Alito spoke. The elections can preserve Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, which can stave off Republican ambitions to ban abortion nationwide; if the majorities are large enough, they may even be able to fulfill Joe Biden’s promise to reinstate Roe by statute. Voting for Democratic governors, attorneys general and state legislators can blunt or reverse the impact of state abortion bans and misogynist laws: a local election, for many women voters, means a choice between a district attorney who will prosecute patients and providers of abortions, and one who will not.Alito’s whole opinion drips with contempt, but the line about American women – that we are “not without electoral and political power” – felt like a dare. American women do have power, perhaps more than Samuel Alito realizes. It’s time to call his bluff.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionAbortionWomenRoe v WadeUS supreme courtLaw (US)HealthcommentReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      A Young American Woman Loses Faith After Dobbs Ruling

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Ohio’s partisan supreme court election could decide abortion’s future in state

      by

      AnalysisOhio’s partisan supreme court election could decide abortion’s future in statePoppy NoorThe midterms include key elections to the state’s highest court as the judicial system becomes increasingly politicized In Ohio, a highly partisan fight over three state supreme court seats could determine the political direction of the court on a slew of important issues – particularly abortion.With the US supreme court increasingly handing issues such as voting rights, abortion, gun rights and gerrymandering back to the states, state supreme court races are becoming more important than ever.Abortion on the ballot: here are the US states voting on a woman’s right to chooseRead moreFew states illustrate how political these courts are becoming better than Ohio, where justices’ party affiliation will be listed on the ballot for the first time in the 8 November election, and where the justices on that court will soon determine the fate of the state’s six-week abortion ban that has been blocked and unblocked by lower courts since Roe v Wade was overturned early in the summer. Abortion is currently legal in the state up to 22 weeks, as the ban is being litigated.As a result of the stakes, more cash is also pouring into state supreme court races around the country from political action committees associated with the national parties. Fair Courts America, a Pac associated with the Republican party, has pledged $22.5m for state supreme court races this election cycle, to support conservative judicial candidates in Kentucky, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas.In Kentucky, that same Pac has donated $1.6m to three conservative judges vying for election. One of those judges, Joe Fischer, is a former Republican congressman who was the key sponsor of the state’s trigger ban on abortion that went into effect when Roe was overturned, as well as an anti-abortion referendum that’s being put to Kentucky voters next week.“People used to spend all their time looking at the federal constitution for protections, particularly when it came to individual rights. But now the US supreme court is basically saying these matters are better left resolved in the state courts and their state constitutions,” explains Bill Weisenberg, a former assistant executive director of the Ohio State Bar Association.In Ohio, after Roe fell, ending the federal constitutional right to abortion, the state implemented a ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. That ban is currently being blocked by a lower state court, but ultimately, it will land with the state supreme court. And the election of certain justices will be pivotal in determining the future of the ban.The seven-justice Ohio supreme court currently has four Republican justices and three Democratic justices. The current chief justice, Maureen O’Connor, a Republican, is not seeking re-election this year because of age limits, so two other sitting justices, Republican Sharon Kennedy and Democrat Jennifer Brunner, will battle it out to replace her in the top spot. Two incumbent Republican justices, Pat DeWine and Pat Fischer will face Democratic challengers Marilyn Zayas and Terri Jamison, for seats on the court.O’Connor, the chief justice who is standing down, was a Republican-affiliated judge who was happy to break with the party line on issues such as gerrymandering. She has never openly indicated where she stands on abortion.But all three Republican justices up for election on Tuesday have stated on candidate surveys that they believe there is no constitutional right to abortion, according to local news, meaning their elections could strike a fatal blow to abortion rights in Ohio.They also came under fire in September for attending a Trump rally where the former president repeated baseless claims about the 2020 election being stolen, and for subsequently refusing to confirm that the results of the 2020 election were valid. One of those justices – Pat DeWine – is also under scrutiny for having liked a tweet promoting a conspiracy theory about the violent attack on the husband of the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, asking “what are they hiding?” He has since said he clicked “like” inadvertently.Meanwhile, Zayas, Jamison and Brunner have publicly stated that they believe the Ohio constitution protects the right to abortion.Weisenberg cautions that neither political affiliation, nor what a justice indicates of their views before their election, are watertight indicators for how they will rule once they are on the supreme court. “People are surprised sometimes when they read the opinion and it’s not in keeping with where they thought the justice would lean, or what they had said on a prior occasion,” he said.Indeed, the US supreme court justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito indicated they believed the constitutional right to abortion was settled precedent before being confirmed to the court.TopicsOhioAbortionReproductive rightsRoe v WadeUS justice systemUS midterm elections 2022US politicsanalysisReuse this content More

    • 238 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Abortion might help Democrats in the midterms in two major ways | Laurel Elder, Steve Greene and Mary-Kate Lizotte

      by

      Abortion might help Democrats in the midterms in two major waysLaurel Elder, Steve Greene and Mary-Kate LizotteIf young pro-choice voters turn out in higher numbers than forecast models are expecting, it could provide a bounce to Democrats in key races Political science-based forecasting models offer a clear prediction for the 2022 midterm elections – the results will be very bad for Democrats. Based solely on the fundamentals like the state of the economy, the type of election (ie midterm) and having an unpopular Democrat in the White House, a model by political scientists Charles Tien and Michael Lewis-Beck, generated months before 8 November, predicts a 44-seat loss for Democrats in the House and a five-seat loss for Democrats in the Senate.The forecasting models produced by FiveThirtyEight are not quite as grim about the prospects for Democrats, predicting that the party will most likely lose majority control of the House of Representatives, but have a small (and shrinking) edge in holding on to their minuscule advantage in the Senate. Unlike the political science models, FiveThirtyEight’s predictions also incorporate polling data and therefore pick up on the ground-level reality that Republicans have put forth weak candidates in key races.Abortion is a bread-and-butter economic issue. We need to treat it that way | Rebecca SolnitRead moreBut there is a plausible case to be made that even models incorporating polling data are underestimating Democratic strength in the 2022 midterms. The issue of abortion may help Democrats in two important ways that are not being picked up in either of the models discussed above.Predicting the outcome of elections is considerably more difficult than other types of polling (eg issue polling), as it requires making assumptions about who is actually going to turn out to vote. Among these well-founded assumptions is that young people have the lowest turnout of all age groups – especially so in midterm elections. Thus current likely voter models assume that young people will once again underperform as voters in 2022.For those who have interacted with young women recently – the anger about the Dobbs decision is undeniable. Outrage at the idea that “old white men” are making decisions about their bodies has made abortion a priority for young women. A recent poll of Gen Z Americans in swing states supports this, providing empirical evidence that young people are energized to vote and continue to rank abortion as their top issue, even while the issue has slipped in importance for older Americans. Young people’s passion on issues has failed to translate into actual action in the voting booth in the past; however, if young pro-choice women actually do turn out in higher numbers than forecasting models are expecting, this could provide a multi-point bounce to Democratic candidates in key House and Senate races.Additionally in our research we found there are a lot of cross-pressured Republicans on the question of abortion legality. While there are a small number of Democrats who hold positions on abortion in tension with their party – eg less than 10% approve the overturning of Roe v Wade – the percentage of Republicans uncomfortable with their party’s policies on abortion reaches anywhere from 30-50%. When abortion policy was more or less settled law, it was easy for cross-pressured Republicans to ignore the conflict between their party’s position and their own, but now that Republicans are enacting highly restrictive laws and outright abortion bans, such contradictions will be harder to ignore. How will cross-pressured Republicans respond?The Kansas referendum over the summer suggests that the threat of abortion bans has the power to mobilize low-propensity voters and entice cross-pressured Republicans to abandon their party’s position. Voting for a Democratic candidate, however, is not as likely as voting in disagreement with one’s party on a referendum, especially in today’s polarized climate. The more likely possibility is that at least some cross-pressured Republicans may simply opt out of the electoral process.Losing the House and especially the Senate would be a major political blow for the Democrats with important and lasting policy consequences, but should that happen, the impact of the Dobbs decision will likely have staved off much larger losses. And should the Democrats defy historical odds and hold on to the House, or, more likely, the Senate, they will almost surely have the Dobbs decision to thank and its ability to mobilize young voters and to demobilize cross-pressured Republicans.
      Laurel Elder is a professor of political science at Hartwick College
      Steven Greene is a professor of political science at North Carolina State University
      Mary-Kate Lizotte is a professor of political science at Augusta University
      TopicsUS midterm elections 2022OpinionAbortionRoe v WadeUS politicsRepublicansDemocratscommentReuse this content More